Download send

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful context—anonymous access and that the returned bytes remain encrypted—but it does not address whether a Send password is needed, the response format, or how the bytes are delivered. With annotations covering safety partially, a 3 is appropriate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single sentence is front-loaded and every phrase carries meaning: 'Anonymous' and 'still-encrypted' both add information. It is concise, though it omits necessary detail rather than wasting words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a six-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain required IDs, optional request parameters, authentication expectations, or the return format, leaving the agent to infer too much.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the tool has six parameters, including opaque ones like t, form, params, and json_body. The description says nothing about send_id, file_id, or any of the undocumented parameters, so it does not compensate for the schema gap at all.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb (download) and resource (Send file bytes), and the phrase 'actual (still-encrypted) Send file bytes' distinguishes it from metadata-oriented siblings like vaultwarden_get_send. It does not explicitly name the sibling it complements, so it falls short of full differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus vaultwarden_get_send or vaultwarden_get_sends, nor any conditions or prerequisites beyond the word 'Anonymous'. The agent must infer that this is the byte-retrieval counterpart to metadata retrieval.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.